We are deeply concerned about recent reports that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) led a secret, coordinated campaign to revive the failed SOPA legislation through other means, and helped manufacture legal arguments in connection with an investigation by Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood.

Almost three years ago, millions of Americans helped stop a piece of congressional legislation—supported by the MPAA—called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). If passed, SOPA would have led to censorship across the web. No wonder that 115,000 websites—including Google—participated in a protest, and over the course of a single day, Congress received more than 8 million phone calls and 4 million emails, as well as getting 10 million petition signatures.

Here is what recent press reports have revealed over the past few days about the MPAA’s campaign:

The MPAA conspired to achieve SOPA’s goals through non-legislative means

According to The Verge, “at the beginning of this year, the MPAA and six studios … joined together to begin a new campaign” to figure how it could secretly revive SOPA. It “joined together to begin a new campaign” to achieve wholesale site-blocking by “[convincing] state prosecutors to take up the fight against [Google].” The movie studios “budgeted $500,000 a year towards providing legal support”—and the MPAA later sought up to $1.175 million for this campaign.

The MPAA pointed its guns at Google

With that money, the MPAA then hired its long-time law firm Jenner & Block to go after Google while also funding an astroturf group—the Digital Citizens Alliance—with the same goal of attacking Google. (Source: The New York Times).

The MPAA did the legal legwork for the Mississippi State Attorney General

The MPAA then pitched Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood, an admitted SOPA supporter, and Attorney General Hood sent Google a letter making numerous accusations about the company. The letter was signed by General Hood but was actually drafted by an attorney at Jenner & Block—the MPAA’s law firm. As the New York Times has reported, the letter was only minimally edited by the state Attorney General before he signed it. Here is what the document showed about its true origin:

We've redacted the name of the attorney to protect her privacy

Even though Google takes industry-leading measures in dealing with problematic content on our services, Attorney General Hood proceeded to send Google a sweeping 79-page subpoena, covering a variety of topics over which he lacks jurisdiction. The Verge reported that the MPAA and its members discussed such subpoenas and certainly knew about this subpoena’s existence before it was even sent to Google.

Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week that the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making,” and that he “has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and “isn't sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the Huffington Post and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had numerous conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys about this matter.

UPDATE - Friday, December 19: Because Attorney General Hood's 79-page subpoena constitutes an unjustified attack that violates well-established U.S. laws governing Internet platforms and online intermediaries, we are today asking a federal court to set that subpoena aside (our brief is here). We are also asking those with a hand in this campaign to preserve all relevant documents. We regret having to take this matter to court, and we are doing so only after years of efforts to explain both the merits of our position and the extensive steps we've taken on our platforms.UPDATE - Monday, March 2: Today, a federal court entered a preliminary injunction against a subpoena issued by the Mississippi Attorney General. We're pleased with the court's ruling, which recognizes that the MPAA’s long-running campaign to censor the web—which started with SOPA—is contrary to federal law. We’ll continue working to protect people using our services: in 2014 alone, we removed more than 500 million bad ads and over 180 million YouTube videos for policy violations.

The MPAA isn't trying to censor the internet - they are trying to defend their intellectual property which Google compromises by deliberately turning a blind eye to certain apps and content on YouTube. Here is an example of an app from the Google Play Store that facilitates piracy:

While technically apps like these break no laws in the USA (because all they do is link to pirated content on someone else's servers) - it's still sleazy and not right that Google "looks the other way" in the ruse of "freedom". It's all about these kind of apps making more $$$ money for Google. Stop with the freedom nonsense and do what's right.

The MPAA is claiming to "defend their intellectual property rights", but the effect of their choices and decisions is to make harder and/or more expensive communication in which they have no intellectual property rights.

They do that because it gives them business advantage, not so much against pirates because those are by definition already breaking existing laws, and are not suddenly going to become law-abiding More important is their ability to use existing and new laws against those who want to communicate without the companies represented by the MPAA getting any benefit.

And while the MPAA has every right to lobby for changes that benefit its members, we should automatically be suspicious of any attempt to pass new laws that privilege some existing companies relative to society as a whole. We should be particularly suspicious when such laws and methods are conceived, drawn up, and put into effect without public discussion or input, or when "improved" versions ignore the major flaws of existing laws, when those flaws benefit the companies who support the "improvements."

And Google can do more than offer a blind eye to apps that facilitate piracy and be more aware of the flood of pirated material on YouTube recently. Ahh but if Google was more "proactive" in their policies about copyright infringement - it would hurt their bottom line $$$$$. See there's a bit of a conflict of interest there. IMO Google is more concerned with protecting their bottom line (their balance sheet) - then they are of being the goodwill ambassador of internet freedom. As I mentioned they use the freedom excuse as a ruse.

Wrong. I have no affiliation with the MPAA or any astroturf group. Just a common sense individual that can step back and see the entire issue for what it is. I have no horse in this race - just trying to look at it objectively. I don't see it as the MPAA is 100% at fault and Google is the white knight that is going to save internet freedom for everyone.......

The thing is whether Google's motivations are noble or a shrewd protection of commercial interests is irrelevant to whether or not the legislation MPAA and its affiliates and bought-off politicians previously lobbied for and subsequently tried in various guises to ram through outside of the normal legitimate channels is a good idea for anybody except the MPAA.

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that uses the internet to feel particularly concerned for the plight of the MPAA enough that they would willingly support and let sail through legislation that will have significant detrimental impact upon the entire internet globally to address a supposed wrong that MPAA and it's members claim to have suffered. If supporting google's stance in blocking and publicly shaming SOPA and those who lobby for it also helps Google's commercial interests that's really not going to sway anybody since in this instance, Google's interests align with those of the general public. It doesn't make Google angels, it doesn't mean their interests and the general public will always align or that they are above scrutiny but it does mean that MPAA crying that google will make money unless SOPA gets through means nothing to the people who will be adversely affected by SOPA (everyone except the MPAA).

The things with astro-turf is, it doesn't really have a smell, but it looks and feels very different to the real thing.

I really don't care about the MAFIAA or their supposed lost revenues or their conspiracy theories about how much money Google is supposedly making from running ads on content the MAFIAA dislikes. I care about freedom of the Internet from censorship, including MAFIAA censorship, and from MAFIAA funded astroturf front groups like the "Digital Citizens Alliance". I view Google as a company that favors freedom, takes "don't be evil" seriously, and I think the American people stand with it and with the forces of freedom, justice, and liberty against the jackbooted fascist, totalitarian forces of control and censorship, of which the MAFIAA is in the lead.

If the MAFIAA wants to be SOPAed again, all it has to do is continue with its' present trajectory. The next Internet strike/blackout will only be larger and more forceful than the 2012 version. Bottom line is the MAFIAA has to be learnt that the Internet is private property, and they don't own it or control it, so they need to get their filthy hands off our private property, off our Internet,

Well when Google knowingly allows an app in the Google Play store that facilitates piracy - and is asked by several parties to remove said app but refuses in the name of "freedom" - then I don't blame the MPAA to ask the ISPs to block that particular app. Not at all. What else can they do if Google refuses to do anything? It's like Google is being a "leach" by profiting off of an app that rips off other people's work. I say more power to content owners if they can get the ISPs to block apps like that.

Now looking at it from another perspective - in the past there have been several unauthorized YouTube apps for certain devices - which Google threatened legal action to get shut down. You see Google is like everyone else - they don't like it when people can deprive them of revenue by watching an unauthorized YouTube app without ads. If Google's is so into freedoms - why not just let the unauthorized YouTube apps stay up? Ohhhh wait a minute you mean Google doesn't like getting their content ripped off - hey it's "freedom" isn't it? Well, well, well a bit hypicritical isn't it? Why is that app that I posted a link to still in the Play store? Do you think it's about "freedom" LOL It's because Google used that app to promote the sales of Google TV at the detriment to the content providers. They even went as far as to make it a "featured app for Google TV". Google was asked to take the app down and refused - so now Google is crying because the MPAA was forced to contact the ISPs to try and get the app blocked. Ah excuse me but I'm not shedding any tears for Google......

Well Jack my dear, you see once again how it has little to do with google being angels or hypocrites and everything to do with a nasty piece of legislation being foisted upon everybody. I say this as someone who isn't themselves an American but am still equally concerned about SOPA passing as it will allow a small group of people to reshape the internet as they see fit and use the considerable weight of the american legal system to enforce it when they're challenged. There's also the nasty habit my country's government has of thinking 'America did it' is good enough rationale for implementing policy so I've as much at stake as Americans do in this regard since shit flows downhill.

Ultimately, this is about whether or not SOPA or any of it's other guises is beneficial to anybody other than those proposing it and lobbying for it. It seems pretty clear that it isn't, so whether google is a white knight or a company who like the MPAA members is protecting it's income makes no difference in this equation.

The lack of willingness to engage with the matter on this level, and the clandestine efforts to force legislation through despite public opposition is a good indicator that the MPAA are well and truly aware that what they'r proposing is a raw deal for everyone else and hence the need for smoke and mirrors.

The entire premise of intellectual property rights if the biggest joke in decades. It basically tries to tell you that if you buy something, you don't own it. You just bought the right to use it, but it's technically not yours to do whatever you want. "DO NOT MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES OF THIS DISC"

I'm sorry, but if you buy a disc, you should be able to do what you want with it. The digital age has changed the game, and the MPAA doesn't understand that. The boundaries of "property" has changed, and with intellectual property, they can extend those boundaries however far they want. Tell you what to do with something YOU paid for.

They just can't accept the fact that digital property is not the same as physical property, and the digital era is an unfortunate turn for the movie industries, but that's just the way it is. They need to accept it. Things change, business changes, times change. Some for the better of certain individuals, and some not for the better.

This isn't even about money anyway, it's all about ego. Studies have shown the movie industry isn't even losing money to piracy.

The above story is partly about internet censorship, which the MPAA has been seeking for over 10 years. But that's NOT actually the problem; it's only an after effect of the REAL issue. The problem is and always has been the copyright laws that "attempt" to protect people's work. Protecting someone's work is and always has been a somewhat fruitless endeavour, especially with today’s technological capabilities. It‘s just another way of paying into a system that doesn't actually work. The very concept of having copyright laws is an old-age mentality. The future of the world and technology awaits for the abolishment of copyright laws. Only then can progress be unshackled for the ACTUAL benefit of mankind as opposed to the financial benefit of a few. One day the movie studios and the MPAA will be found criminally responsible for the damages that they've already incurred on the ordinary citizen, but that’s a whole other story. ….Google keep up the good fight, and don't let the MPAA(or the NSA for that matter) push you into a freedomless corner! You are the current people's champion for a reason, so please don't let us down!

In an age of costless copying, there is no place for generational ownership of ideas.

We need a robust public domain. Works must enter it well within one generation at the pace of today's society and culture. Current copyright law is madness. A return to rational copyright is required: five years free, required registration, one paid extension for a maximum of 10 years. Fourteen years was enough for the age of the printing press!

Is it wrong to enforce accountability on the web? I would not say that I support this legislation outright, but I have a tough time arguing against the fact that downloading movies and other protected content online is unjust and should be illegal. A happy medium needs to be reached where individual rights are protected, but people are held responsible for what they do while sitting behind a computer.

Objectively wrong. The attorney general has colluded behind closed doors with a nefarious lobbyist group and lied to the public about it. He did so to implement broad stroke censorship at the request of the MPAA who do not have any authority to police the internet. Nor does the attorney general have jurisdiction to be serving Google subpoenas. Anyone who supports this in any way shape or form is a fool and should be ashamed of themselves on a personal level. This is objectively true.

To your point, the MPAA does not have the authority to police the internet, nor should they. But who does? The government is the first answer, but they are not equipped, in structure or in flexibility, to take on such a huge role. Google is in a pivotal position here, but I fear that they are missing the truth in some of the MPAA's cries. In their pursuit of a "free" internet, I hope they realize that this is not mutually exclusive with an internet in which people are held accountable for illegal actions.

Maybe "policing" the internet is not the right way to look at it, but looking 15 years down the road I hope you can see the sense in some form of accountability. It is my hope that Google realizes that if they are willing to bend, then they can have an influential position in working with the government to create a system that is fair for all. Their absolutist approach will not work, just like calling everyone who supports a piece of legislation a fool.

Google should do as required by law and not an inch more, because the more they give into the movie and recording businesses (MPAA/RIAA) the more the MPAA/RIAA will come running back asking for more... and more... and more... and more.The MPAA want to make the internet into their own private garden and treat all its citizens as cash cows, nothing more, while Google sees the full potential of the internet and wants it to be free.People who break the laws should be held accountable, Google has no business playing enforcer for a greed and outdated bunch of crooks who seem to like corrupting AGs all over the US.

Looking 15 years down the road, if the MPAA's wishlist comes even half true would be a nightmare for freedom, something out of a depressing futuristic movie that Hollywood has done in the past. The only true win is if Google puts it's foot down and kicks the bad guys (in this case, the MPAA) in the nuts.

" It is my hope that Google realizes that if they are willing to bend..." Google has done nothing wrong and thus should not bend, they should however make the people who put constant pressure on Google bend over for trying borderline illegal ways to make Google bend.

Imploring Google to "not give an inch" is a short-sighted view of the situation when they have the influence to direct the course of the future of the internet. As I am sure you would agree, laws governing the internet are both outdated and inadequate, especially to enforce accountability. I am suggesting that they bring their own constructive input to this debate, and I think you are missing the point by criticizing the MPAA/RIAA for skirting the law, while encouraging Google to do the same throughout your comment.

It will always be the MPAA's prerogative to maximize profitability for their industry, so your claim that they are "cash cows" is a bit redundant and misguided, as is the earlier comment calling them nefarious.

I would say that Google needs to work towards a sustainable long-term solution to the problem of accountability online, not that they need to "kick the MPAA in the nuts".

> Imploring Google to "not give an inch" is a short-sighted view of the situation when they have the influence to direct the course of the future of the internet.

The internet being a "good" for the people is in direct contrast with what the MPAA and their elk have in mind for the internet.

When you have the former head of Sony say something like:"I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet," said Sony Pictures Entertainment chief executive officer Michael Lynton. "Period." (Google it)

it just goes to show their way of thinking. These dinosaurs don't want to change and only want to stick to "tried and true methods" that worked 30 years back, that is not the future.

> especially to enforce accountability.It is not Googles job to take on "enforcement of accountability", Google is a search engine, it's job is to return results for a given search, regardless if some people disagree with the returned result's result.

>I think you are missing the point by criticizing the MPAA/RIAA for skirting the law, while encouraging Google to do the same

Kindly point me to where I asked Google to skirt the law or encouraged Google to do so. I have said time and again Google should follow the law to its full extent... and not a millimeter more. Companies (the MPAA included) should be heavily, criminally, penalized for skirting the law.

> It will always be the MPAA's prerogative to maximize profitability for their industry

Yes, but they are supposed to do it legally... and not poison our legal systems or our officials when doing so.The MPAA are scum, the stuff that is below the bottom of the barrel as we have seen time and again, and as we have seen in this case while "co operating" with Google, were at the same time working on a plan to backstab Google.The internet they would like to build is an internet that no sane person would like.

> I would say that Google needs to work towards a sustainable long-term solution to the problem of accountability online,

Again, not Google's job.

This actually would make a lot more sense:I would say that the MPAA and the studios they represent need to work towards a sustainable long-term solution to the problem of changing their business models for the online world...

The MPAA are a pack of parasites, and should be treated as such, but Google has been trying to pacify (in recent years) them and go above and beyond what the law requires Google to do thinking that would make the MPAA happy but... all the MPAA has done is come back with more demands.

From the very beginning Google should have done EXACTLY how much the law demanded Google do and not an inch... actually, forget inch, make that a millimeter.., more that what the law required Google to do and then fight the MPAA on each and every millimeter that the MPAA wanted more.

The MPAA will never be satisfied till they can control Google and any other company that does not do what the MPAA wish... and hopefully pay the MPAA for that privilege.

While I would like to say the MPAA buying lawmen is a new low, this has unfortunately been going on for quite a while and the only question is: what was the price for Jim Hood? How much less does an AG go for compared to for example an elected official like Lamar Smith (who penned SOPA/PIPA if memory serves me right) ?

But I digress, hopefully Google will take off their dunce cap and treat the MPAA the way they need to be treated, openly, with a firm hand, and with the gloves off. Or history has a nasty habit of doing something...

Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, feeling betrayed after the defeat of SOPA and PIPA in spite of having paid millions in "bribes" to congressmen and senators, said to them, "Those who count on 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Many feel this is a brazen admission of bribery. It has staggering implications to say the least. Honest politicians should feel outraged with his attitude and turn their backs to him.

***Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week that the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making,” and that he “has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and “isn't sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the Huffington Post and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had numerous conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys about this matter.***

Caught like a rat in a trap. No offense to the actual rodents.

I'm also quite surprised at the volume of astroturfing (MPAA workers/supporters acting as "civilians") in this comments section, but I guess they had to do something now that they secret plans (that they hoped would never be brought to light) are open for the world to read, analyze, and take in without a MPAA filter over it.

It seems to me that the people who cry loudest about having their "liberties" violated when they read stuff like this about the MPAA - are those that don't want to bother paying for their premium video content and instead revert to apps/sites such as IceFilms, 1Channel, Showbox, XBMC, etc. I am not a fan of those apps and as such when I read the recent article about what the MPAA did it didn't really bother me at all. I'm smart enough to see that this Blog (by Google's legal department) is an attempted "smokescreen" to deflect the focus away from Google's own questionable behavior by attempting to creating a "hysteria" of sorts about the MPAA violating people's freedoms. If I may ask - In what way do you feel threatened by what the MPAA did? It's not like they spied on people's email. Do you perceive it as a personal threat if the MPAA requests ISPs to block shady apps like 1Channel? If so why do you feel that way?

Google is a search engine, it's job is to find links and display those links to people who requested those links. It's job is not to help an out of date industry stick with old business models and fight the future.Thanks for mentioning icedfilms,1channel,showbox I had no idea of those services but I...googled it ;)

If SOPA was to pass I think it would be just like the drug war. They would force their laws down our throats. The people as a majority refuse to accept those laws. The people break the law. The government spends stupid amounts of money on enforcing those laws to no effect. Then your starting a digital war on freedom and if they thought the Sony hack was bad they are in for a treat when you piss off the American tech industry. The world is leaving the MPAA dinosaurs behind and they are crying like a 4 year old in the cereal isle!

I'm not saying stealing digital content is right. It's not. However, it's being done. So instead of trying to shackle the internet, how about you lower prices, make it more reasonable to buy than steal?

In our current digital age, every song isn't worth a dollar, and every movie isn't worth $20 in a digital download. People like me just won't buy it. Others will just steal it. The "real" cost of the movie copy is the cost of storing the bits and sending them over the wire. Put your price more in line with that, people will pay to use your service instead of risking malware/viruses from a torrent download.

Plus, you'll make a TON of money! Ever hear of supply and demand? There's a magic spot you're missing.

Liberty and freedom sometimes come at a cost in many ways. The MPAA et. all will need to find another means to protect their property. All the laws are already there to allow them to do just that.

The three internet commandments:The internet shall remain anonymous.Internet providers shall remain utilities.If the first two commandments are broken the current network shall be abandonded and our brothers and sisters will band together in creating a new true internet.

Well, well, well. I just tried a Google search for "Showbox app" - and sure enough the very first search results are links to this notorious app that is probably one of the biggest concerns to the content providers. Take a look see here:

http://www.google.com/#q=Showbox+app

What a joke - Google publishes a blog about internet freedoms being violated in an attempt to mask their behavior such as this. And all the Showbox fans that don't consider it proper to pay for their content coming runing out of the closet to offer support for "poor" Google and the right for fredom! Ha I find this rather amusing. The only reason the Showbox app isn't in the Google Play Store is because it's actually illegal in the USA. This being that they actually store the pirated content on their own servers. I happen to know that the proprietor of Showbox resides in Russia - that's why it's difficult for USA authorities to effectively deal with scams like this. But because Showbox is an Android app it benefits Google's bottom line $$$$ by having it so readily listed at the top of the search results. Yeah Google - the altruistic crusader for everyone's "freedoms" is at it again.........

I honestly don't see why the responsibility is being laid upon Google to censor "violating" results. Firstly, they are a search engine; if there is offending content out there, it's the responsibility of the pursuing party to take care of it. Not the search engine that found it. Secondly, they have no responsibility to even listen to the MPAA. What they have done so far has gone well above and beyond what they are "supposed" to do. They created a platform that users create their own works on. By the logic that you're pursuing Google with, blaming Google for an app that links to pirated content is like getting angry at the hardware store because someone cut the lock off your fence with a pair of their bolt cutters.

While I will admit that piracy is a very large problem, it's a problem that the MPAA and it's associated organizations/companies needs to address. You don't blame the company that made the cameras, you take care of the actual issue that was recorded by them.

"it's a problem that the MPAA and it's associated organizations/companies needs to address. You don't blame the company that made the cameras, you take care of the actual issue that was recorded by them."

That sounds too much like work, the MPAA would rather everyone else do the work for them... for free of course.

Jason thank you for your reply - but I must respectfully disagree. Google is not going well above and beyond what they are supposed to do when they make apps such as 1Channel a "Featured App for Google TV" in their Play Store:

The UK has actually banned the 1Channel web sites and Spain is now prosecuting webmasters that knowingly link to pirated material. So Google is smarter than the UK and Spain? Don't kid yourself Google will do as little as possible to meet required laws while at the same time doing as much as they can to promote questionable apps & web sites as long as they consider it as contributing to their bottom line. It's not an easy solution for authorities to shut down operations like this because they reside outside the USA - and the servers involved are located in various countries that aren't concerned about it.

Jack....just stop. You are not selling anyone here. You have been exposed. Anything you post from here is tainted by your affiliation (to put it mildly) with the MPAA. Newsflash we don't care about you not being able to buy the new Bugatti because someone pirated the latest POS movie Yours is a racket industry. Are going to give me my money back when your product is trash? I didn't think so!

Awww concerned that the MPAA will block your favorite pirate app? Please excuse me if I don't shed a thousand tears over your dilemna... now carry on. But in the future you might consider actually paying for content instead of stealing something that you don't own.

eZee.se there was a good comment below that YouTube video that you posted.

** No matter how they put it, pirating gives access to something without going through the subscriptions or price tags accompanying the song, game, movie, etc. This is damaging to an industry and there is little to no reason to pirate unless you just turned 14 and want to feel you're rebelling against some unjust system Kids, please do community service instead, it's a much better use of your time. **

Jack, I get that you're upset about apps like 1Channel, but it's user created content and it has nothing to do with my original point. Google is not responsible for policing the internet.

They have absolutely gone well above and beyond what they are supposed to do, because the MPAA is NOT a legal authority over anything. It's like me complaining to Nike for their worker laws in China. Nike doesn't even have to acknowledge that I tried talking to them, let alone change any of their business practices or policies because I said they were illegal (even if I'm right).

If the government were to get involved on the other hand and specifically tell Google to comply with some ridiculous standards of censorship, then they would be doing exactly what the MPAA wants. You can throw as much crap at Google as you want, but at the end of the day, they have literally zero responsibility to comply with the MPAA. The part about "above and beyond" that I'm referring to, is the countless takedown requests and threatened lawsuits that they have to deal with every single day from bloated, useless organizations that represent billion dollar companies. It costs Google as a company, time, resources, and money to even accommodate those requests. So yes, they are going above and beyond what they are required to do, which is absolutely nothing until the government gets involved.

Google might of done what they are legally required to do - but it's in Google's best business interest to not piss off the content providers. Google needs the content providers for the Play Store, YouTube and their new Android TV platform. When you get mistrust between Google & the Content providers you get failed business ventures such as Google TV - and now the new Nexus Android TV player has a scarcity of apps compared to the competition. So by turning a blind eye to apps that facilitate piracy - in essence Google is biting the hand that feeds them.

Also if Google is free to do whatever they want until the government tells them to stop - the MPAA can do what it wants to protect it's iown interests also. If you read the comments in the Google Play store about the 1Channel app - it doesn't work for "some" people - I have information that this is because some ISPs are blocking it. IMO I don't see anything wrong with that either. Google isn't the MPAA's boss - it kind of made my day when I realized that some ISPs are blocking that app -;) It's nothing but a scam.......

Based on your arguments it seems to me that content providers should be doing everything they can to get on Google's platforms. If Google is facilitating piracy via 3rd party apps, but protects it's own content by banning apps that infringe on it's youtube ads ect. then content providers should be getting on Google platforms for the protection, and then work with Google who then has added incentive. Problem solved, you're welcome.

Post 1/2 (! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters)

First, a few things before I get up on my soap box...

- I have been following the Sony incident and came here by way of this superb article. I imagine anybody posting here would find it worth a read: https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/- I read ALL of the preceding comments.- I have no idea why Jack is so bent out of shape. Maybe his heart is two sizes too small? But with all due seriousness, with comments like, "...apps/sites such as IceFilms, 1Channel, Showbox, XBMC" and "...the 1Channel app - it doesn't work for "some" people - I have information that this is because some ISPs are blocking it", it seems like he is pushing an agenda. I spend a bloody lot of time on the internet and I haven't heard of ANY of the apps/sites he mentions. And his grammar and punctuation does not offend me. This in itself is not a bad thing. I would appreciate more of that in general from human commentary online. But in this instance it just makes it seem less like somebody voicing their opinion and more like what everybody else above thinks it sounds like... In any event, you have had your stand on the soap box. Please get down and let the rest of us have our turns.

WHEW! Now that that's out of the way....

The evidence against the AG is pretty damning. Now, I'm quite sure this sort of thing happens quite frequently in politics, American or otherwise. It's just that somebody got caught with their hand in the cookie jar here and can't admit it. At least Amy Pascal had the decency to admit it and apologize, however insincere that token apology actually is. But she wasn't doing what, essentially, boils down to bribing elected officials to do their bidding.

Legal shadiness aside, public perception is the MPAAs real problem. I understand that protecting their members' profits is what they're supposed to be doing. But doing things like hiring companies to monitor filesharing and suing individuals? That is in very poor taste. And asking for damages in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars against your average run-of-the-mill citizen when your execs and copyright trolling thugs you've hired are making how much? Have you ever heard of the phrase, "The punishment should fit the crime"? It's no wonder the public perception of the RIAA/MPAA is so dismal. This sort of action just adds fuel to the fire.

I can't think of any instance off the top of my head where Google has gone out of their way to step on the little guy or suppress an uncensored internet. I vote with my wallet when companies do that.

Does anybody remember the personal spat Steve Jobs had with Adobe, and how he refused to support YouTube and Flash, and even went so far as to publish a paper on why Flash was horribly flawed? Or how you can't even replace a battery yourself in an iPhone? Or how Apple was so secretive about product/software launches that some companies would be working on software for a platform that was soon to be discontinued or phased out, and not notified by Apple? Public perception. I have refused to buy any Apple products for quite some time now (actually, for the record, I never have). I hope their business practices will change for the better now that Jobs has passed, but that is wishful thinking. But until that day comes (if at all), I'm quite glad for my Google driven smart phones.

I have many more examples of the above. Of companies that I do not do business with because of they way they conduct themselves. In short, people should vote with their wallets more often. Inform others. Persuade them to do the same. How long would establishments like the MPAA last if everybody boycotted their member's products? Not very long. (well, except for maybe Disney, that rat makes a killing at his theme parks...)

And copyright law is so behind the times. SilverTrumpet999's comment was so spot-on that I'm going to put the whole thing here:

"In an age of costless copying, there is no place for generational ownership of ideas.

We need a robust public domain. Works must enter it well within one generation at the pace of today's society and culture. Current copyright law is madness. A return to rational copyright is required: five years free, required registration, one paid extension for a maximum of 10 years. Fourteen years was enough for the age of the printing press!"

Imagine this scenario if you will:The wheel was just invented and patented. This thing is a breakthrough. Bleeding edge science. Wow. Just wow. There are others who are inspired by this invention, and think of other amazing ideas that could use this. A car! A wheelchair! Etc. But patent law prevents them from utilizing the wheel.

Patent law really only encourages copyright trolling in today's age. Did I mention Public Perception? I HATE copyright trolls (remember, vote with your wallets!). It stifles innovation. We need new ideas and inventions to draw upon recent innovations. We, as a race, are not doing ourselves any favors by suing each other and trying skirt around existing patents on technicalities to avoid lawsuits. Want real innovation? Re-invent the patent laws, NOT the wheel.

Okay, I'm tired and my train of thought is abandoning me, so I'm getting off the soap box. KTHXBYE.

Politicians have become corrupted by contributions from the entertainment industry, and now seem to be falling all over each other in their eagerness to serve their Hollywood directors. The Rights Groups with their political allies are now so powerful they have governments the world over jumping to placate their every whim, negotiating secret treaties just for them, even as they conspire to control our computers and cripple the internet to enhance their profits.

Every time a change to copyright law is proposed, it is in response to demands from powerful lobbies. When have you ever seen a grass roots demand for broadened rights, stricter enforcement, or longer copyright duration? Never! Legislation reflects neither the will nor priorities of the majority. People see this happening over and over again, feeling helpless while watching their rights being eroded away. They are not organized, have no lobbyists working for them and no money to buy the politicians with - nor should they need any of that! Their representatives have failed them.

A tension will always exist in the bargain between consumers and content creators. Though they draw their raw material from what came before and belongs to us all, we grant them an exclusive monopoly for a limited time that they might have incentive to create their transformative works. The tension arises from the fact that once a work is released into the collective experience it lives in this strange quantum state like Schrodinger's cat. It is both a part of our collective consciousness while at the same time the creator's exclusive property.

People become impatient after some time passes to claim that work as their own, since it is now in fact a part of our cultural heritage. Other creators cannot help but scoop up a piece of that work when they reach into the collective consciousness to obtain raw material for their own work, and thus may come into conflict with the original creator.

Calling it a "bargain" made between the consumer and producer would give the false impression that some kind of direct negotiation needs to take place. The term's use is metaphorical. There is no such thing in actuality, as the content producers have no inherent right to negotiate terms. They only have a take it or leave it proposition. If they like the terms we set, they will likely take advantage of our offer and be fruitful, but only the people can decide how much they are willing to sacrifice for what they hope to receive in return.

In the "bargain" between the copyright holders and us, our politicians should be representing the people. Instead, they are representing the copyright owners and giving away the store! For just one example, in the USA and many other countries, copyright duration has expanded from the original 14 years to life plus 70 years. With an average life expectancy of 78 years and a work created at age 28, that would mean 120 years that work is withheld from the public domain. Do creators of transformative works require this as an incentive before they will create their works? Of course not!

To put the rights groups in control is to have the tail wag the dog. This can only cause people to become upset and act impulsively to the detriment of all. A civil society depends on respect for the law in order to function. The only alternative is a police state. When politicians start representing the special interests groups who fill their campaign coffers people lose respect for the laws they create and civil society begins to break down. Political corruption is a very, very serious issue with far ranging implications.

Copyrights legislation has become an out of control freight train on a downward grade. The power of the corporate lobbies needs to be curbed and their voices muted. The people must be heard.

Everyone that is buying into Google's BS attempt to hide the true facts with their attempt at creating this subterfuge blog (to incite false fears of freedoms being taken away) - should read the full reply of attorney general Hood's response to Google's filing of a lawsuit:

This is an excerpt from Attorney General's Hoods statement (from the link in my previous post). Please read it carefully:

********* We have accomplished much, but more needs to be done. For example, although search results vary based on time and location, today if a child types in the query "buy drugs," the first site populated is silkroad.org, which suggests alternatives for buying drugs. The second is canadadrugs.com, which is the same website from which my undercover agents purchased controlled amphetamines without a prescription in June of 2012. Our investigators used Google's autocomplete suggestion to find this website not requiring a prescription. Not only was this website listed in the search results, but it was also shown in the results margin as an advertiser. In other words, Google is raking in advertising dollars off of drug dealers, the same crime that the company was on probation for under a plea agreement with the federal government and the Rhode Island Attorney General. In the seven-page Non-Prosecution Agreement Google entered with the U. S. Department of Justice, Google agreed to pay half a billion dollars in a fine to avoid a possible felony. ***********

Like Google doesn't do any lobbying to get congress to keep the laws inadequate so they can get away with their crap? Google's spends millions on lobbying - so it's evil when the MPAA does lobbbying to try and protect their interests? Did you get the part of Hood's statement that Google takes advertising dollars from drug dealers?

"Jack", I'm starting to see a pattern here...Do you, Hood and any people from the MPAA/RIAA (and other affiliated scumbag organizations) share the same sheet of talking points (like they were outlined in the leaked Sony documents) if you are leaving a comment on the internet?

Besides, this is not lobbying...lobbying is to get your wishlist of laws passed via our standard democratic procedures (as tried when the MPAA paid their little critters for SOPA/PIPA etc), this is, at best, bribery of a public official.

Google wielded it's power with congress to make a lot of the laws controlling these kind of things inadequate. Such as in the USA it's OK to link to pirated material (as long as it's not hosted on your own server). This law is a 'very weak link' in the fight against piracy - and Google essentially wielded it's clout with congress to have the laws designed in this manner. In other countries such as Spain and the UK this kind of unscrupulos activity is illegal.

Now why do you think Google prefers these laws to be "lax"? Do you think it's because they care about your "freedom"? HA!

It's because this kind of activity increases their $$$$ bottom line. If you believe any thing different than your just being a Google sheep with the wool pulled over your eyes.

Nice try, but it's actually the other way around.The MPAA and their elk corrupted overseas governments to pass those insane laws in Spain/UK.

The web was built on "linking to each other". I sincerely doubt your made up history of Google "using its clout to have the laws designed in this manner", but if I am wrong I think my appreciation for Google would go up at least ten fold!

> Do you think it's because they care about your "freedom"?

While I think Google's "Don't be evil" has eroded a lot from the time it actually had some meaning,If given a choice between the MPAA and 99.99999999% of other companies, I would go with "other companies" simply because of the number of times the MPAA has shown they are willing to screw everyone over to get their perverted view of their "vision" stuffed down everyones throat.

The MPAA is to the internet what the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. ;)

OK hypothetical here. Why don't you spend your hard earned time and dollars and create something like movie. (Let's suppose that your livelihood will depend on sales of this movie). OK now I'll make arrangements with a bunch of people to download illegal copies of your movie to shady web hosting companies overseas. Then I'll make an app for it and sell it for money. Now everyone gets to see your movie for free so they won't bother paying you for it. And I'll make money for being a 'sleazeball' app developer. Gee I'm glad that your so understanding! Your really a cool guy in that you don't mind getting ripped off.

And thank you Google "for looking the other way" and letting sleaze-balls place their apps in your Play Store that do this very thing. Don't worry Google I'm sure your meeting your so-called 'legal requirements' that you and your cronies in congress conjured up. And thank you for your altruistic endeavor to ensure "freedom" for everyone...........................